Greater New York Broadcasting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 414 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of GREATER NEW YORK BROADCASTING COMPANY RADIO
STATION WNEW, EMPLOYER and RADIO & TELEVISION BROADCAST
ENGINEERS UNION, LOCAL 1212, IBEW, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 2-RC-612.-Decided July 28, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
P mrsuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated November
17, 1948,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on December 10,
1948, among the employees of the employer in the unit found appro-
priate, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director.
for the Second Region. Upon the conclusion of the election, a Tally
of Ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that, of the
20 valid votes counted, 9 votes were cast for, and 11 were cast against,
the Petitioner.
On December 17, 1948, the Petitioner filed its Notice of Objections
alleging that certain acts by the Employer and the Intervenor prior to
the election prevented the employees from exercising a free choice of a
bargaining representative at the election which he had directed. The
substance of the Petitioner's objections and exceptions allege that: (1)
the Employer and American Communications Association, CIO,
hereinafter referred to as CIO, acting in concert, entered into a collec-
tive bargaining agreement at a time when they were aware of the
existence of a claim for representation by the Petitioner; (2) the
,execution and enforcement of the contract caused a continued chain
of events which were detrimental to the interest of the Petitioner and
impeded, interfered, and prejudiced the free choice of the employees
and (3) by other acts and conduct, the Employer interfered with, re-
-strained, and coerced the employees in the exercise of their free choice
,of bargaining representative. Upon investigation thereof, the Re-
gional Director issued his Report on Objections in which he recom-
mended that the objections be overruled. Exceptions have been filed
1 Unpublished.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 7h.
414
GREATER NEW YORK BROADCASTING COMPANY 415
by the Petitioner to the Report on Objections within the time provided
therefor.
In his report, the Regional Director found that the Employer and
CIO have been parties to a collective bargaining agreement since Sep-
tember 1, 1946. The contract was effective until October 1, 1947,
and renewable annually thereafter in the absence of written notice
45 days prior to its anniversary date. The agreement was automati-
cally renewed on October 1, 1947. By a letter dated July 28, 1948',• the-
Petitioner notified the Employer of its claim to representation. On
July 31, 1948, the CIO requested the Employer to negotiate an ex-
tension to the agreement. On August 5, 1948, the Employer signed
the extended agreement and sent it to the CIO for ratification by the
,radio technicians. On August 6, 1948, the CIO called a meeting of
the radio technicians for this purpose and secured their ratifications.2
On the same day (August 6) the Petitioner filed its petition. On
September 30, October 8, and October 11, 1948, a hearing was held on
the question of representation raised by the petition. On Novem-
ber 17, 1948, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election,
and on December 10, 1948, the election was held. On December 17,
1948, the Petitioner filed objections as shown above.' The Regional
Director concluded : (1) that the Petitioner was aware of the existence
of the agreement as early as August 19, 1948; when at an informal
conference the Employer and the CIO alleged a contract bar to the
representation proceedings; (2) that at no time during the inter-
vening months, although it had ample opportunity to do so, did the
Petitioner take any action with respect to the contract, its alleged
implementation by the Employer, or any other matters alleged in the
objections .4
2 The report shows that during this meeting the CIO representative allegedly made
coercive statements to the employees for the purpose of obtaining their ratifications to
the contract . We agree with the finding of the Regional Director that the effect, if any,
of the statements made and of the ratification of the agreement were dissipated during
the 4 months preceding the election . Therefore we find a contrary contention of the
Petitioner to be lacking in merit. Cf . Matter of The Laclede Gas Light Company, 80
N. L. R. B. 133.
s It also filed charges alleging unfair labor practices against the Employer and the
CIO. While it is our practice in directing an election to require that a charging party
waive pending unfair labor practice charges as possible grounds for setting aside the
election , no unfair labor practice charges had been filed either at the date of the Board's
Decision and Direction of Election or on the date of the election . Accordingly, we find
that the unfair labor practice charges could not have affected the election , inasmuch
as none were on file at that time. Matter of U. S. Gypsum Co., 81 N. L. R . B. 1259.
4 The investigation disclosed that several weeks before the election , a supervisor of
the company , after telephoning a National Labor Relations Board staff member, told
an employee that if a "no " vote won, the Board would withdraw and the agreement
would remain valid . The supervisor informed the investigating officer that this was.
his own opinion and not that of the Board staff member . Subsequently , the Employer,
upon learning of this remark , posted two notices , one addressed to the radio technicians,
and the other to the radio technician supervisors , asserting that supervisors had no
authority to speak for management about the issues involved and that any statements
:416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board 5 has considered the Petitioner's objections,6 the Regional
Director's report, the Petitioner's exceptions thereto, and the entire
record in this case. Like the Regional Director, we find that the
Petitioner's acquiescence during the long period intervening between
the execution of the contract between the Intervenor and the Em-
ployer and the election herein precludes at this time an objection
predicated on the execution of the contract.' The exceptions raise
no new and material issues not considered by the Regional Director
in his report and they are hereby rejected.. Accordingly, the Regional
Director's recommendations are hereby adopted in their entirety.
Since the Tally of Ballots shows that no collective bargaining repre-
sentative has been chosen, we shall dismiss the, petition herein.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for certification of repre-
sentatives filed by the Petitioner herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
made with respect to such matter should be disregarded by the staff . We agree with
the Regional Director' s finding that the effect of such statement , if any, was dissipated
by the notices. See Matter of Carrollton Furniture Manufacturing Company, 75.N. L. R. B.
710; Matter of Kroder-Reubel Company, 72 N. L. R. B. 240.
8 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Mem-
bers Reynolds , Murdock, and Gray].
The Petitioner's request for oral argument contained in its exceptions is hereby denied,
as-the record adequately presents its position.
.4 Matter of E. I. Dupont DeNemours and Company , 81 N. L. R. B. 239 ; Matter of The
Goodyear Tire & Rubber . Company (Special Products Plant "C"), 85 N. L. R. B. 135.